## Facts

- Adrian Peterson, a Minnesota Vikings player, engaged in corporal punishment of his son in May 2014 and later entered a no-contest plea to a misdemeanor reckless assault charge.
- At the time of the conduct, the NFL’s then-existing personal-conduct policy generally contemplated a maximum two-game suspension for first-time domestic-violence offenders.
- In late August 2014, the Commissioner announced a revised personal-conduct policy imposing a presumptive six-game suspension for a first domestic-violence offense, and publicly stated it would not apply retroactively.
- After Peterson’s plea, the Commissioner placed Peterson on the Commissioner’s Exempt List and then disciplined him under the revised policy, suspending him without pay for at least the remainder of the season and requiring counseling.
- The NFLPA grieved the discipline under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), arguing the revised policy was impermissibly applied to pre-announcement conduct and conflicted with established past practice (“law of the shop”).
- The Commissioner appointed Harold Henderson as arbitrator, and the arbitrator upheld the discipline in full.
- The NFLPA petitioned federal court to vacate the arbitration award under LMRA § 301 and the Federal Arbitration Act; the NFL opposed and sought confirmation.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority under the CBA by upholding discipline that effectively applied a revised policy to pre-announcement conduct.
2. Whether the award failed to draw its essence from the CBA because it disregarded established arbitral precedent and past practice (“law of the shop”) regarding notice and discipline.
3. Whether the award was unenforceable where the arbitrator accepted shifting justifications for discipline, including reliance on generalized “conduct detrimental” authority after discipline was framed under the revised policy.

## Decision

- The court granted the NFLPA’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and denied confirmation.
- The court held the award did not draw its essence from the CBA because the arbitrator approved discipline that functioned as a retroactive increase in punishment.
- The court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his authority by disregarding controlling law-of-the-shop constraints on the Commissioner’s disciplinary discretion.
- The court remanded the matter to the NFL for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of labor arbitration awards is highly deferential, but courts may vacate an award that fails to draw its essence from the parties’ CBA or reflects an arbitrator’s own brand of industrial justice.
- An arbitrator exceeds contractual authority when the award ignores clear contractual limits and binding past practice governing notice and permissible sanctions.
- Discipline premised on a policy change may be unenforceable where the process approves an effective retroactive enhancement of punishment inconsistent with bargained expectations and established arbitral interpretations.
- Post hoc reframing of the basis for discipline cannot cure deficiencies where the record shows the discipline was imposed and defended under a different governing policy, and where notice and predictability are required by the CBA and past practice.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the arbitration award upholding Peterson’s suspension, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority by approving discipline that operated as a retroactive application of a revised domestic-violence policy and by failing to apply established law-of-the-shop limits embedded in the CBA and prior arbitral practice.


Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n v. Nat'l Football League, 88 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (D. Minn. 2015)